70 Responses to 1967: 43 Years Of Global Cooling

Off Subject, but
Our Climate in Chief has now really gotten the USA and much of the world now in a mess.
Romney was not a good politician, but He would have been a good president and much of what
he has said, sadly is coming true.
A coalition of Russia, which was kept out of the Middle East for 50 years, Assad’s Syria, Iran and now it seems Iraq is coming to power in the Middle East
A so called 62 or 65 ephemeral nation alliance led by our Climate in Chief now as a plan.
The Climate in Chief is going to hold up his Nobel Peace Prize and say, ‘Hey fellas, you can’t do this’.

I would say that those were the good old days because back then people realized that National Geographic wasn’t a peer reviewed publication. Now, many years later people with political agendas can say “look, they (scientists) were calling for global cooling. They are just as wrong now as they were then.”

Of course, the reality is that from the mid-60’s to the late 70’s there were actual peer reviewed papers indicating that global cooling was about to commence. All you “skeptics” can pat yourself on the back for getting that “right”. The problem is that during that time period there were like 7 times more peer reviewed scientific papers that said that global warming was about to happen than there were papers that said global cooling was going to happen.

Fast forward to today and the ratio is even more heavily weighted toward those supportive of warming than those supportive of stasis or cooling. But gobble this up as if National Geographic or Time or Newsweek is the equivalent of peer reviewed papers that appear in science journals.

I think the whole point here is that warmists keep insisting that there never was a global cooling scare (or whatever you want to call it) and that the whole thing is based on one article that appeared in one magazine (Time or Newsweek, i forget which). Yet Tony keeps finding article after article from that period which shows that belief was far more widespread than warmists are willing to admit.

But I think reasonable people can agree that if you want to know what scientists think on a subject, especially where new ground is being broken, you go to peer reviewed papers and not to necessarily to profit driven media sources that don’t fully understand the science but know how to sell papers.

So somebody actually went to the peer reviewed papers from 1965 to 1979 and his analysis is here.

So it appears (if this analysis is accurate) that 6 times more global warming papers were written than global cooling papers during that time frame. I can’t speak for other “warmists” but what is frustrating is the same lies keep popping up. So yes, scientific papers and articles based on those papers were written at the time. It happened. It’s a fact. But it’s really misleading to imply that this was anything but a minority view and the data (44 papers vs 7) is pretty conclusive on this front, right?

But on this very website you’ll find another article in a week or month or year down the road that will link to another article from the 1960’s or 1970’s saying scientists thought we were going to be cooling. It’s incredibly misleading, right? After reading that paper you do see that, right? The truth appears to be that in that time period most scientists thought warming was going to occur. Today the evidence is even more conclusive and the consensus is even larger but most people here will obviously deny that.

Koop, NCAR, NSF NAS, NASA, CRU, CIA, Time, NYT , CSM ,,
Every major science and news organization talked about the coming Ice Age.
In case you are slow on acronyms, the first four are national leading science and weather institutions, and the CIA is not (or was not) a propaganda media outlet.

A lot of us were alive and very aware of the news in the 70s and some of us even had that cooling world hype and coming ice age stuff pushed on us by teachers. Tony provides great stuff from the archives on that cooling hype but for some of us it merely reinforces what we remember from that time.

Denying that there was a cooling scare is very much like denying there was a Y2K scare. They both happened just the cooling scare was less intense over a longer period than the Y2K scare. Needless to say both were proven false despite the predictions of so many “experts”.

And that is why this AGW scare is so much like a broken record to some of us. Except this time our government is actively promoting it to try and gain more power over us. And that makes it a much more dangerous.

The “Epic Fail” was the fact that the “consensus” was ever brought into the argument. Consensus is a political concept and not scientific. Just as the vast majority of the members of the IPCC that have input into their reports are political with a specific agenda and not scientific.

“The seeker after truth is not one who studies the writings of the ancients and, following his natural disposition, puts his trust in them,” the first scientist wrote, “but rather the one who suspects his faith in them and questions what he gathers from them, the one who submits to argument and demonstration and not the sayings of human beings whose nature is fraught with all kinds of imperfection and deficiency. Thus the duty of the man who investigates the writings of scientists, if learning the truth is his goal, is to make himself an enemy of all that he reads, and, applying his mind to the core and margins of of its content, attack it from every side. he should also suspect himself as he performs his critical examination of it, so that he may avoid falling into either prejudice or leniency.”
― Ibn al-Haytham

Ibn al-Haytam is recognized as the first to combine experimentation and observation to make a rational argument. He stands as the earliest of the many who laid the foundation for what we now call “the Scientific Method”. He was the first to express the idea of what we now know as Occam’s razor. A razor when applied today which cuts the throat of the AGW hypothesis.

My bad, it’s actually only 6 times. And of course I didn’t read them. But I do understand when pretty bogus claims are made by “skeptics” and how most of you guys won’t correct your fellow skeptics when they spout non-sense.

So here we go with a short analysis. A lot of fairly gullible “skeptics” think that scientists were crying about global cooling in the 70’s. The “skeptics” go on to say that the scientists were wrong then and so they changed their tune and are saying it is actually global warming that will be the problem. And then when that doesn’t happen the scientists change their view yet again and start calling it climate change instead of global warming. Would you say that is a fairly accurate of one strain of “skeptic” thought? I’m not saying that all skeptics follow this line of thinking but this post is one example where the author says “see, look at those dumb scientists getting it wrong again!”

Well, the truth seems to be that the science was far less well established back in the 1960’s and 1970’s. And, yes, some scientists published papers that promoted global cooling, but it was only apparently 7 total papers. And there were 44 papers that were supportive of global warming. And yet today, next month, and in the years to come the skeptic community will continue to push the idea that the consensus in the 70’s was that the earth was about to cool. The truth is they didn’t think that. The concensus was that the earth was about to warm. And they didn’t then change the name to climate change because of the “pause” after 1998. They used the terms interchangeably for years and the hint that the IPCC was established well before the “pause” should give you a clue.

Anyway, stop patting yourself on the back, pull your hand out to your keyboard and tap away to gain access to this document. And maybe next time one of your fellow skeptics pulls out the “scientists thought we were going to cool in the 70’s” maybe you’ll be brave enough to say, you know, that’s just not true.

And now solar activity in this cycle (24) is lower than any time since 1906. And if NASA is correct the next cycle (25) will be even more stunted. And when that happens it will not be possible to keep the AGW zombie hypothesis animated no matter how much the powers that be try to keep it looking alive.

I’m responding to myself due to limits of this website on discussion threads but this is in response to Rah. You indicate that because solar cycle 24 is really low and solar cycle 25 is predicted to be even weaker that this causes harm to AGW. I must say that is a poorly stated conclusion.

For example, as you say, solar cycle 24 is really low but 2015 will, in all likelihood, be the hottest year on record for a good ways in the past. That doesn’t cause AGW to be questioned, it supports it entirely. The basic argument would be that if solar output is low and yet we are still going up in temperature there is likely some cause of that and it would be CO2 levels.

That lag is estimated to be some 10-14 years, a sort of smoothed lag due to the massive energy holding/regulating capacity of the oceans. There is also a lot of energy still in the system from the series of strong solar peaks in the latter half of last century, but that is gradually being released in a series of El Ninos.

Note how the 198 El Nino caused a step up, the 2010 caused a spike and dip, but no step up…. but the current El Nino has so far only caused s slight bulge.
Think about that… if you are capable of un-brain-washed thought.

There are many scientific papers out there that predict cooling to set in quite soon, and continue for a several decades because of the very low solar cycles.

When that does happen, the whole AGW scam will come crashing to the ground…

The “hottest year on record” hype is a fraud. Why would anyone believe it is an accurate representation of the real world when there is such limited coverage and those that compile it reject some raw data and then process the rest while refusing to reveal their methods of doing so? All the while we have two excellent satellite measurements systems, RSS and UAH which are completely out of phase with those claims for surface temperatures and who’s data agrees much more closely to the radiosondes than the surface temperatures being claimed.

So we have three data sets that say it isn’t even close to the hottest and one that says it is! In the mean time we have blogs like this where time and again and again and again Tony has pulled up the old records to expose the blatant lies that it was the hottest or most extreme here or there recently. Given all of that It takes a special kind of stupid or very effective blinders or down right dishonesty to not be extremely skeptical of the surface temperature claims of the hottest ever recorded for the globe.

And don’t even try to argue say that the other systems don’t measure temperature at the surface and thus are irrelevant. FACT: The hypothesis states that the first warming from CO2 must show up as hot spots in the lower troposphere because that is what the basic physics demands. That is an area where the satellites and radiosondes measure the temperatures. The hot spot has never has been found! Thus the hypothesis of AGW was falsified long ago and all of the tampering with surface temperatures they do can’t change that fact.

The fraudsters can’t control the data from those other sources and so they reject them and go on falsely claiming this is the hottest month or year ever time and again using the only data sets they control. And the unskeptical lap that pap up as if it is fact and unquestioningly regurgitate it just as you have here. I suspect if they say the temperature where you live is 36 degrees F and yet you see ice forming on the mud puddles you would believe them before you would your lying eyes or your own thermometer.

“…But I think reasonable people can agree that if you want to know what scientists think on a subject, especially where new ground is being broken, you go to peer reviewed papers and not to necessarily to profit driven media sources….”

Recent research has focused on MIS 11 as a possible analog for the present interglacial [e.g., Loutre and Berger, 2003; EPICA community members, 2004] because both occur during times of low eccentricity. The LR04 age model establishes that MIS 11 spans two precession cycles, with #18O values below 3.6h for 20 kyr, from 398{418 ka. In comparison, stages 9 and 5 remained below 3.6h for 13 and 12 kyr, respectively, and the Holocene interglacial has lasted 11 kyr so far. In the LR04 age model, the average LSR of 29 sites is the same from 398{418 ka as from 250{650 ka; consequently, stage 11 is unlikely to be arti cially stretched. However, the June 21 insolation minimum at 65N during MIS 11 is only 489 W/m2, much less pronounced than the present minimum of 474 W/m2. In addition, current insolation values are not predicted to return to the high values of late MIS 11 for another 65 kyr. We propose that this effectively precludes a double precession-cycle” interglacial [e.g., Raymo, 1997] in the Holocene without human in influence.

Since then no one in Quaternary Science has rebutted Lisiecki and Raymo. Not a fact to give one warm fussy feelings. Their research says no warming for ‘another 65 thousand years’ and a good possibility of a return to the Ice Box ‘without human influence’

Because the intensities of the 397 ka BP and present insolation minima are very similar, we conclude that under natural boundary conditions the present insolation minimum holds the potential to terminate the Holocene interglacial. Our findings support the Ruddiman hypothesis [Ruddiman, W., 2003.]…
(wwwDOT)sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277379107002715

A fall 2012 paper “Can we predict the duration of an interglacial?” says…

…although it has been unclear whether the subdued current summer insolation minimum (479 W m−2 ), the lowest of the last 800 kyr, would be sufficient to lead to glaciation (e.g. Crucifix, 2011). Comparison with MIS 19c, a close astronomical analogue characterized by an equally weak summer insolation minimum (474 W m−2 ) and a smaller overall decrease from maximum summer solstice insolation values, suggests that glacial inception is possible despite the subdued insolation forcing, if CO2 concentrations were 240 ± 5 ppmv (Tzedakis et al., 2012). …..
(wwwDOT)clim-past.net/8/1473/2012/cp-8-1473-2012.pdf

Obviously I can’t rebut scientific papers and, from my understanding, there are good solid papers that indicate that AGW may be overstated. There are, of course, good solid papers that indicate that AGW may be understated. I don’t know your background but I would venture that everyone on this website does not have the technical abilities to properly weigh in on the scientific discussion. And so we, as non-experts, are left to try to weigh the evidence as best as we can.

So I’m curious as to how you weigh the evidence? And how do you think your politics interferes with that analysis? How do you avoid confirmation bias?

For my part, it may be pollyanna but I simply recognize that I don’t have the background to fully understand the science. So I have to default to the scientific process and believe that it hasn’t been fully contaminated by politics. I understand that you think it has been compromised. I’ve seen you link to articles about the crumbling peer review process and that is something that I am aware of. It’s a larger issue that needs to be addressed but I haven’t seen how people think it specifically applies to any given paper on climate science. And then, of course, I’ve seen you link to East Anglia. Reasonable people can disagree but what I have seen as evidence on this has been so incredibly weak as to be laughable. But there is a decent chance that I have not seen all the evidence that you have seen.

This thread is not really conducive to a discussion on that topic but maybe one day with Steven/Todd’s assistance we could have the best repository of information on East Anglia here on this website. My guess is that it will continue to be underwhelming but I’m open to being convinced.

Actually I have a degree in chemistry and ran labs in industry. My husband’s degree is in physics. Given the amount of cheating I saw through my career I am a bit cynical — (DON’T fly on airplanes! The last cheating was on tests for aircraft turbine blades and I got blackballed for catching that cheating)

I normally try to read the peer reviewed papers and look at the discussions on those papers. Since I have always had an interest in and therefore took courses in biology and geology as well as math, statistics, physics and chemistry, I can normally follow most of the information.

I really would suggest you take a look at Dr. Evans work on the IPCC type climate models. It is interesting to see an expert take apart a model and explain it. He will answer question or the other commenters will.

If you were going to default to the scientific process, you would immediately know that AGW is, and always has been, an UNVERIFIED HYPOTHESIS that should have been circular filed ages ago, and would have been had it not been the massive money and political will behind it

Every model based on it FAILS.
Every prediction based on it FAILS.

But you ignore the scientific process, because you don’t know what it is.

Koop in VA says:“…. But I do understand when pretty bogus claims are made by “skeptics” and how most of you guys won’t correct your fellow skeptics when they spout non-sense….”
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Koop you just haven’t been here long enough to see the fights. Just today you missed the fight between Gator and I.

Not to mention Steve Goddard’s fight with a lot of us over Greenhouse gases,

Dr. Nir Shaviv’s Reply to Eschenbach Dr. Saviv is an Israeli‐ American physics professor, carrying out research in the fields of astrophysics and like Steve a lifelong enviornmetalist.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

A group with a uniform opinion is the last thing we are. If we do agree, generally it is pretty solid science.

That first link is a good example of what I’m talking about. I’m sticking around here a little because, for the most part, the level of discourse is reasonable (with a few notable exceptions (Hi Andy!)). And there are clearly some very smart people here with science backgrounds. Of course, when you venture out to a AGW article that is linked by Drudge you see the disintegration of the quality of the argument and you get out right denier (ignorant) crowd involved. That is largely what I was referring to but perhaps that is too cheap and easy to conflate ignorant deniers with knowledgeable skeptics.

I’m glad to know that Steven isn’t one of these people that think that CO2 won’t warm the earth. He seems to agree that it will it’s just the degree that it will happen. But the average denier says that CO2 won’t warm the earth at all. They’ll also try to be semi-scientific and say that CO2 levels have historically lagged temperature rise. But Steven seems to say to understand that this misses the point.

Anyway, I’ll assume that you agree that CO2 also causes warming but perhaps not to the degree that many AGW scientists or supporters claim it will because the forcing issue is over stated. So what is your understanding of what the global mean temperature will be after a century of 400 ppm or 500 ppm or 600 ppm worth of CO2?

Here is the lecture (audio and video) plus slides discussing CO2 and Dr. Happer’s research. This is based on experimental data. I sat in on his grad level Physics lecture and found he is a good and clear speaker. The Video BTW was for a lay person audience and the audio was of the lecture I attended.

David Burton put up an audio video and slides of Dr Happer’s presentation at this. link

Figure 2.15: Stratospheric cooling rates: The picture shows how water, carbon dioxide and ozone contribute to longwave cooling in the stratosphere. Colors from blue through red, yellow and to green show increasing cooling, grey areas show warming of the stratosphere. The tropopause is shown as dotted line (the troposphere below and the stratosphere above). For CO2 it is obvious that there is no cooling in the troposphere, but a strong cooling effect in the stratosphere. Ozone, on the other hand, cools the upper stratosphere but warms the lower stratosphere. (ibid)

An older comment of mine combines information from two other physicists with that of Dr. Happer.

I can’t see any point in trying to be reasonable and nice to people who want to peddle their base-level ignorance by supporting a fraud that has done immeasurable damage to the world’s economies, people and environment.

Andy, I write for the lurkers and fence sitters that read but don’t comment. That is the reason I generally try to hold my temper in check. Unless it is David the Appalling or a Swine before Pearl wit…. or gator who is fun to tweak and certainly up to my weight.

“….For example, as you say, solar cycle 24 is really low but 2015 will, in all likelihood, be the hottest year on record for a good ways in the past. That doesn’t cause AGW to be questioned, it supports it entirely. The basic argument would be that if solar output is low and yet we are still going up in temperature there is likely some cause of that and it would be CO2 levels.

Second, although the total solar insolation does not vary much the distribution especially in the Ultraviolet and Visible range does. This is a relatively new finding of NASA’s within the last decade. The oceans selectively absorb the energy from the higher wavelengths.

The IPCC says “The ocean’s heat capacity is about 1,000 times larger than that of the atmosphere..” As Andy indicated that causes a major lag, so that is the next stop.The oceans as a calorimeter by Dr Shaviv (He links to his actual peer -reviewed paper but this is a layman’s version complete with a fight between skeptics.)

…One of the raging debates in the climate community relates to the question of whether there is any mechanism amplifying solar activity. That is, are the solar synchronized climatic variations that we see (e.g., take a look at fig. 1 here) due to changes of just the solar irradiance, or, are they due to some effect which amplifies the solar-climate link. In particular, is there an amplification of some non-thermal component of the sun? (e.g., UV, solar magnetic field, solar wind or others which have much larger variations than the 0.1% variations of the solar irradiance). This question has interesting repercussions to the question of global warming, which is why the debate is so fierce….

I am going to stop there because the rest is connecting a complicated mess containing a huge number of dots. I have about 40 pages of notes on papers about solar UV, ozone and their effects on the atmospheric circulation, polar vortex, winds, the Antarctic Circumpolar Current, Drake Passage, ENSO, (El Nino) and the Gulf Stream… and that does not get into magnetic fields and cosmic rays.

Endlessly attacking the media as clueless extensions of “expert opinion”, does not qualify as proof that experts are always wrong. Take a deep breath, and consider the fact that by definition, experts will always be somewhat wrong. That the media’s job is to attract attention means that they will always amplify anything the experts deem is ‘unusual’.

A true ‘expert’ will always change his opinion based on new data. It is his job. New data will forever adjust his opinion. Yes, there was a flip-flop in the mass media after the 1970’s from global cooling to global warming. But if you honestly look at the expert opinion of that period, you will find the majority of scientific studies in the 1970’s leaned toward warming, and currently is the dominant opinion today.

If you trusted the scientific literature from the 1970’s, you would still trust the current scientific literature today. If you trusted Popular Science or the New York Times in the 1970’s, you may not trust them today. Please do not conflate the popular press with scientific opinion.

Were there ‘experts’ who had everything 180 degrees out of whack? Of course, there always was, is, and will be qualified people who go against the over-whelming majority of opinion. Are they sometimes right? No, well, very seldom. Even Einstein, who upset the Newtonian world of physics, only modified the extremes. Newtonian physics is still used as the everyday physics of non-relativistic phenomenon.

How did scientists become this reviled, scheming, grant-thirsty group of sensationalists that this ‘Real Science’ blog loves to disdain? Well, take an honest look here. Simply scan the post titles. You will find that politics is what drives this blog. It is not liberal government grant givers that forced scientists to do the chicken little thing. We have been through too many versions of political governmental control in the last 45 years to simply think that that @#$!*$^% Obama has corrupted the science. And that is just the US. The rest of the world is all on a bender to ruin the world economy? Yeah, that’s the ticket. Keep on trucking my friends.

Macroeconomists typically divide government economic activity into four broad classes: spending, taxation, deficits, and monetary policy. There is, however, a fifth class of activity that may well have important effects on economic activity but that nevertheless has received little attention in the macroeconomic literature: regulation. Although microeconomists have analyzed both the causes and effects of regulation for decades, macroeconomists have joined the discussion only much more recently, with a number of empirical studies suggesting that regulation has significant macroeconomic effects.

But even without considering state-level regulations, the estimated adverse effect of increasing regulation on economic growth since 1949 has been staggering, here’s part of the conclusion:

Regulation’s overall effect on output’s growth rate is negative and substantial. Federal regulations added over the past fifty years have reduced real output growth by about two percentage points on average [annually] over the period 1949-2005. That reduction in the growth rate has led to an accumulated reduction in GDP of about $38.8 trillion as of the end of 2011. That is, GDP at the end of 2011 would have been $53.9 trillion instead of $15.1 trillion if regulation had remained at its 1949 level (see chart above).

As a result [of the increase in federal regulations], the average American household receives about $277,000 less annually than it would have gotten in the absence of six decades of accumulated regulations—a median household income of $330,000 instead of the $53,000 we get now….

Otherwise legal off-the-books economic activity is on the rise again in much of the world, says a new report, with the “shadow economy” comprising huge chunks of many nation’s economies. There’s no need for speculation as to why, say the authors. High taxes and stringent regulations have made it very attractive and even necessary for people to earn their keep and conduct their business out of sight of tax collectors and bureaucrats…..
the authors recommend the carrot. Specifically, they suggest making it simple and attractive for off-the-books operators to get on the books without penalty.

There are, however, huge potential benefits from allowing the self-employed and small businesses to formalise their arrangements. Businesses cannot flourish if they remain in the shadow economy….

While the United States has traditionally had a proportionally small shadow economy when compared to other countries, American economists and pundits have recently noted that it seems to be growing by leaps and bounds, with tax compliance dropping and the gap between the income Americans are thought to have earned and what they’re reporting now adding up to two trillion dollars. That may well be because the U.S. is acquiring a European-sized government and stiffer regulations.

If the U.S. adopts the taxes and regulations of other over-governed countries, we get their shadow economies, too. Surprise.

Andy,
Mogur doesn’t understand the simple basics of politics:““The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.” — H.L. Mencken

He is ignorant of history and the fact that the Great Depression was caused deliberately and the elite would not hesitate to drop the world into another Great Depression or WWIII if that is what it takes to get the global government they have been planing for close to a hundred years.

Again from Pascal Lamy:

…We live in a world of ever-growing interdependence and interconnectedness. Our interdependence has grown beyond anyone’s imagination in fact! Economic and financial shocks spread faster than ever before. With the recent economic crisis we discovered that the collapse of one part of an economy can trigger a chain-reaction across the globe. With the climate crisis, that our planet is an indivisible whole. With the food crisis, that we are dependent on each other’s production and policies to feed ourselves. And with the flu epidemic, that speedy international cooperation is vital. The scope of the challenges the world is facing has changed profoundly in the past decades — more profoundly, I suspect, than we fully understand…

…it does not suffice to establish informal groupings or specialized international organizations, each of them being “Member driven”, to ensure a coherent and efficient approach to address the global problems of our time. In fact, the Wesphalian order is a challenge in itself. The recent crisis has demonstrated it brutally. Local politics has taken the upper hand over addressing global issues. Governments are too busy dealing with domestic issues to dedicate sufficient attention and energy to multilateral negotiations, be they trade negotiations or climate negotiations.

I see four main challenges for global governance today.

The first one is leadership….
The second one is efficiency…
The third one is coherence….The last challenge that I see is that of legitimacy — for legitimacy is intrinsically linked to proximity, to a sense of “togetherness”. By togetherness, I mean the shared feeling of belonging to a community.….

There is one place where attempts to deal with these challenges have been made and where new forms of governance have been tested for the last 60 years: in Europe. The European construction is the most ambitious experiment in supranational governance ever attempted up to now. It is the story of a desired, delineated and organized interdependence between its Member States. How has this endeavour coped with the challenges I have just outlined?

First, on the question of efficiency, Europe scores in my view rather highly. Thanks to the primacy of EU law over national law. Thanks to the work of the European Court of Justice in ensuring enforcement and respect for the rule of law. And thanks to a clear articulation between the Commission, the Parliament, and the European Court of Justice. It also scores highly from the point of view of redistribution policies. The European structural funds and cohesion policies have overall played a key role in the development of European regions and Member States…https://www.wto.org/english/news_e/sppl_e/sppl220_e.htm

If we don’t overthrow capitalism, we don’t have a chance of
saving the world ecologically. I think it is possible to have
an ecologically sound society under socialism.
I don’t think it is possible under capitalism”
– Judi Bari,
principal organiser of Earth First!

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

“Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the
industrialized civilizations collapse?
Isn’t it our responsiblity to bring that about?”
– Maurice Strong,
founder of the UN Environment Programme

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
“A massive campaign must be launched to de-develop the
United States. De-development means bringing our
economic system into line with the realities of
ecology and the world resource situation.”
– Paul Ehrlich,
Professor of Population Studiesifi